Collaborate by Default, Fight Only for Your Ideals
Resolve conflict quietly by default; escalate to open war rarely, only when bad faith threatens what you built.
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~months to results
- Steps
- 3
- Confidence
- 88%
Mullenweg's conflict-resolution posture: 99% of business disputes (even trademark violations) are settled with an email, a call, and a conversation — no lawyers. The rare escalation to public confrontation is reserved for genuine bad-faith actors whose behaviour, if unchecked, could destroy the thing you've built. He frames this as roughly a once-a-decade event, which is the signal that the default is genuinely collaborative.
Origin
Mullenweg's account of the WP Engine dispute, contrasted with two decades of resolving conflicts with larger WordPress-ecosystem companies amicably.
Core principles
- 01Default to collaboration: email, call, conversation before lawyers
- 02Frequency is the integrity check — if you're fighting every few months, you're the problem; every ~10 years signals a real default of peace
- 03Duplicitous/bad-faith behaviour (negotiating in apparent good faith while preparing a lawsuit) is the trigger that justifies escalation
- 04Being 'really open' sometimes requires standing up to bullies to protect the ideals, or they'll exploit the openness to destroy it
- 05When you're in the right, engage publicly and tell the story; when you're in the wrong, you let only the lawyers talk
How to run it
- 1
Start with the quiet channel
For any dispute — even a trademark violation — open with a direct human conversation: an email, a call, a negotiation. Assume the other party is ethical (Mullenweg's experience: 99% are).
Pro tip Most disputes never need lawyers; keeping it human preserves the relationship and the community's trust.
Watch out Naivety is a real cost — Mullenweg admits he was slow to recognise bad faith because he wasn't prepared for it.
- 2
Watch for the bad-faith tell
Escalate only when you detect duplicity: the other side stalling negotiations, or negotiating in apparent good faith while simultaneously preparing to attack.
Pro tip A key tell: the counterpart discussing joining your side ('running wordpress.org') while their company prepared a lawsuit.
Watch out Distinguish a company that merely doesn't contribute back (not a fight) from one acting fraudulently (a fight) — most non-contributors are not worth escalating over.
- 3
Escalate publicly and own the narrative
When you conclude you're in the right and quiet channels have failed, engage openly — give the talk, do the podcasts, tell the full story with context. Warn your own community and team a smear campaign will follow.
Pro tip Long-form media (podcasts, blog posts) beats 240-character platforms for nuanced disputes that get distorted when compressed.
Watch out Expect the counterparty to spend on PR/'dark PR' and for everything bad ever said about you to resurface; anticipate it out loud so it doesn't blindside you.
In the wild
After 18 months of stalled trademark negotiations — during which the WP Engine executive was reportedly discussing joining Automattic while the company prepared litigation — Mullenweg concluded it was bad faith. He gave a spicy WordCamp US talk laying out the case; WP Engine sued days later with a top litigation firm and a heavy PR spend. He warned his community in advance that a smear campaign was coming.
→ A public, contested fight and reputational damage (his 'internet villain' arc), but he judged the ideals worth defending; tens of thousands of WP Engine sites subsequently left.
Common mistakes
Escalating over ordinary non-cooperation
Plenty of companies don't contribute back or bend the rules mildly; treating those as wars would make you a serial fighter. Escalation is only warranted for genuine fraud/bad faith, which is why it should be roughly once a decade.
Letting only lawyers speak when you're in the right
Staying silent behind lawyers reads as guilt; Mullenweg argues that when you're in the right you should be out there telling the story, because misinformation otherwise travels far faster than the correction.
Is it for you?
Best for
Founders and leaders of open, community-driven organisations facing a counterparty who may be exploiting that openness in bad faith.
Not ideal for
Routine disagreements, minor rule-bending, or partners acting in good faith — escalation there destroys trust and relationships you'd want to keep.
From the transcript
“if you're really open in open source sometimes you have to stand up the bullies and you have to fight to protect your open source…”
“usually it's not even lawyers get involved it's just like there's an email we have a conversation we do a call we talk about it”
“it kind of happens like every like 10 years”
“when you're when you're in the wrong you probably say only have the lawyers talk when you're in the right like you know I think…”
From the episode
The creator of WordPress opens up about becoming an internet villain, why he’s taking a stand, and the future of open source
Matt Mullenweg (founder and CEO, Automattic)